Report on the Weakness of All Chains of Transmission for the Narrations on the Breaking of the Rib

Anyone who studies the narrations regarding the story of the breaking of the rib and applies the Imami standards of evaluating narrations must inevitably conclude that these narrations are weak. This is exactly what a group of Imami scholars have done. The jurist Muhammad Asif Muhsini weakened the majority of the narrations on the breaking of the rib. We have already quoted his judgments on most of these narrations. When Muhsini compiled his book Mu’jam al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah, which he filled with the narrations he deemed authentic and which was his last and most comprehensive work, he did not include any narration that establishes the event of the breaking of the rib.

This same conclusion was reached by Muhammad al Hussaini, who ruled that the narrations cited by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili to prove the breaking of the rib were unsound. He stated:

من مجموع الروايات 18 التي تؤكد الاعتداء بالضرب رواية واحدة فقط تتوفر على الصحة السندية أما البواقي فهي لا تتوفر على شروط الصحة السندية لاشتمالها على الإرسال أو ضعف طرقها فضلًا عن صعوبة الالتزام ببعضها

Among the totality of the [18] narrations that affirm the assault by beating, only one narration has a sound chain of transmission, while the others do not meet the criteria of chain reliability, either due to interruptions or weaknesses in their chains, not to mention the difficulty in adhering to some of them.[1]

The lone narration that he deemed to have a sound chain is the one found in Dala’il al Imamah, numbered 32 in Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili’s Ma’sat al Zahra’. However, it seems that Muhammad al Hussaini’s judgment was limited to the chain of transmission only, without considering the reliability of the book’s author. Hence, in the second edition of his book, he added critical footnotes and ruled that the author of the book was not reliable, stating:

لو كنا بصدد مناقشة أصل البحث وموضوع النزاع نفيًا وإثباتًا لأشرنا إلى الإشكال في الرواية الصحيحة المشار إليها رقم 32 لأن هذه الرواية مروية عن دلائل الإمامة للطبري محمد بن جرير بن رستم ولم يوثق عند رجال التوثيق مع أنه كان معاصرًا للشيخ الطوسي والنجاشي نعم وثقه بعض المتأخرين وتحديدًا السيد هاشم البحراني في مدينة المعاجز

If we were discussing the core of the research, whether affirming or negating it, we would have pointed out the flaw in the so-called ‘sound’ narration numbered 32, because this narration is reported from Dala’il al Imamah by al Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam, who was not authenticated by the scholars of verification. Even though he was a contemporary of Sheikh al Tusi and al Najashi, yes, some later scholars, specifically Sayed Hashim al Bahrani in Madinat al Ma’ajiz, authenticated him.[2]

When we scrutinise the chains of transmission of the narrations in the first category, which are those that include chains, we find that all of these chains are weak. Moreover, half of the narrations with chains of transmission are transmitted from books that are criticised for various reasons. Additionally, the rest of these narrations are transmitted by unknown individuals, liars, fabricators, and extremists according to the scholars of Rijal within the Imami tradition.

The following is a detailed presentation of the weaknesses in the chains of the narrations in the first category, using a tree diagram to clarify the points of weakness in the chains.

NEXT⇒

[1] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 28.

[2] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 157, and the previous transmission of al Tustari’s statement explaining the error of Hashim al Bahrani, who confused Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari, the author of al Mustarshid, with Muhammad ibn Jarir, to whom the book Dala’il al Imamah was attributed.